|
Post by aaayyy on May 18, 2009 4:46:08 GMT -5
fazlinho, Just ask Ottomans If I am not mistaken, cantons in Switzerland are like states - they have right to separate, if they don't do it, it's because they like it in Switzerland. BTW then why do you support Kosovo independence - Kosovo Albanians didn't have state but they started rebellions for separation long before Milosevic came to power (and he gained such power mostly because of them) in spite of all YU efforts to integrate them into YU society. PLEASE, QUOTE ANY DOCUMENTS (dated from pre-division era) WHICH CLEARLY ALLOWED BiH TO SEPARATE FROM YU WITH ALL TERRITORY OF BOSNIAN SOCIALIST REPUBLIC ACCORDING TO THE WILL OF SIMPLE MAJORITY OF BiH POPULATION.During separation of BiH the fact that it was a republic of three peoples was somehow completely ignored.
|
|
|
Post by fazlinho on May 18, 2009 5:37:51 GMT -5
You are mistaken. Even if you were not, not that it bothers me, Yuga and BiH had and have different laws and constitutions.
I support Kosovo's independence basing on a human point of view, not on international law. I'm not asking anyone to feel sympathy for us, what I do and will do is refute all those claims that says what BiH did was against BiH's and Yugo's constitution.
PLEASE, QUOTE ANY DOCUMENTS (dated from pre-division era) WHICH CLEARLY ALLOWED BiH TO SEPARATE FROM YU WITH ALL TERRITORY OF BOSNIAN SOCIALIST REPUBLIC ACCORDING TO THE WILL OF SIMPLE MAJORITY OF BiH POPULATION.
During separation of BiH the fact that it was a republic of three peoples was somehow completely ignored.[/quote]
It wasn't at all
The first annex of the consstitution of Yugoslavia from 1974 (the one in power in 91-92)
I'll translate what I quoted:
The Peoples of Yugoslavia, starting from the right of every people on autonomy, including the right on independence, basing on the manifestation of their will
The working class and peoples acquite their rights in the socialist republics
The working class, the peoples, DECIDE IN THE FEDERATION BASING ON THE INTERACTION BETWEEN THE REPUBLICS
So to us, the whole world it is quite clear that every people has the right to independence from the federation expressing the will of every citizen (and as such the will of peoples) and where there are discrepancies the decisions are based on the republical level - what the manifestation of the will of the majority decides is the decision of the whole republic and as one it interacts with the other republics.
So it is was written in the constitution, and as citizens respecting the state we live in, we made our decisions. The fact that you and others think that those words mean destroy ethnic minorities, expell people from the places where they've been living since centuries, is a whole another story I don't care much.
|
|
|
Post by aaayyy on May 18, 2009 6:13:21 GMT -5
Here we can read about people's right, not republic's right. And this statement was about right which had already been exercised by creating YU.
|
|
|
Post by occamsrazor on May 18, 2009 6:34:19 GMT -5
How about every person in BiH has the right to do with their property as they see fit without the unnecessary 'vote' from some external third parties that have nothing to do with the individual and his stuff. You're just drawing arbitrary lines. Which BiH people? What does that have to do with specific territory when most of the peoples lived mixed in the same territory?
Which territory do you draw the lines from which a certain 'BiH people' will constitute the majority? Is this just done arbitrarily?
Countries don't have rights. Only people do. IMHO all persons ought to be able to separate from whatever government is ruling them.
Countries are really just governments which are a small percentage of the total population of people in that geographic area. IMO the people ought to be able to separate from the rule of these other people in government.
Since countries are arbitrary non objective drawn imaginary lines on a some land mass I really don't see real integrity to be preserved. Countries are concept constructs and not real people. It seems to me that only people can decide which associations with other people they prefer , 'border' or not.
If one has a valid property claim, it is his or hers and IMO they ought to be able to chose with whom they want to associate that with , any government or no government at all.
|
|
|
Post by fazlinho on May 18, 2009 8:06:47 GMT -5
Here we can read about people's right, not republic's right. And this statement was about right which had already been exercised by creating YU. Here we read about people's right which are exercized through the institutions of the republics. Yes that one was about creating YU, and indeed it confirms that the will of the majority in each republic had been preserved (I do admit and hell I would have supported such a yuga in the 40's after the war, I'm proud of my family's partisan roots) in the others it is said that they decide now, and how. Countries have rights if you can't understand that concept it's not my problem. I left the IMHO part as it is just your opinion so I don't feel I have to say anything about it.
|
|
|
Post by occamsrazor on May 18, 2009 14:44:25 GMT -5
I understand the faith behind this concept but realistically speaking it makes no sense. I mean, the idea that a concept like 'country' can have rights like a living and existing person is quite absurd.
What is this country btw? Is it rock? Is it the dirt in a particular geographic area? Do these elements have 'rights?' Or are you talking about the government in which case you're only really talking about a small fraction of people in a geographic area that somehow have rights greater than other people not in the government in the same geographical area. What makes these people better or somehow more deserving of greater rights?
|
|
|
Post by soko on May 18, 2009 15:01:49 GMT -5
AAAYYY!!!!!
Here is the thing, for non-Serbs the SHS that came after the AH became as much an occupation s the AH and Ottomans had been before them... As for Bosnia separating from Yugoslavia. Get this, the Yugoslavia Bosnia "separated" from is not the same Yugoslavia that was made after the second world war, so any "legal technicality" here is utterly irrelevent! The Army was neither defending all Yugoslav peoples by the time Bosnia left "Yugoslavia" nor was it defending it-s political system. Get this, a lot of exyugos are nationalists. Some are not... Now.. a lot of Bosniaks wouldn't want Yugoslavia no matter what, the same way nationalist Serbs dont want Bosnia and Herzegovina no matter what. But here is the thing! No Bosniak, NO Bosniak, no Croat no non-Serb wanted an orthodox-fundamentalist serbinized Yugoslavia where we would be second class citizens like in the SHS, where we would have to listen to bullshit medivial mythology. And since the capital city was no longer following the constitution of the SFRJ, since the "Army" was no longer following the consitution of the SFRJ, then it would be absurd to expect that the other republics would follow the territorial part of the same constitution, while all other parts are ignored. The SFRJ from 1943 to 1987 was a GREAT country, it was one of the few times in history that the balkans was normal, that we were not following medival religions, where we were not taking it up the ass from turks or russians or the vatican, it was the greatest moment in south slav history, the only good moment.. But the "Yugoslavia/orthodox-fundamentalist-serb republic" that was in the late 80ties and early 90ties can go suck my balls.
|
|
|
Post by aaayyy on May 18, 2009 15:14:18 GMT -5
And which countries have such states? Who defines the borders of such states?
YU constitution doesn't say anything about republics right to separate with the whole territory ACCORDING TO WILL OF SIMPLE MAJORITY, it says that people can acquite their rights through the republic institutions (it isn't specified in this text if this right includes the right to separate) but mechanism of decision making isn't specified. So your interpretation of YU low is quite subjective.
According to you what did it mean that BiH was a republic of three peoples?
|
|
|
Post by aaayyy on May 18, 2009 15:42:21 GMT -5
soko,
I already know what you write about and I almost agree with you, but IMHO the tendency to create "orthodox-fundamentalist serbinized Yugoslavia" (to consolidate power) was partly reaction to Albanian/Croatian separatist movements. Unfortunately some people didn't like even that kind of YU you so fond and proud of.
IMHO the problem was that some republics were multiethnic and those people who were to become minorities there in case of their separation, also didn't want to become second class citizens of their respective republics-becoming-countries.
|
|
|
Post by aaayyy on May 18, 2009 15:46:35 GMT -5
occamsrazor,
you support rather extravagant world's structure - actually without countries. I don't now how it could be materialized...
|
|
|
Post by fazlinho on May 18, 2009 16:57:38 GMT -5
I understand the faith behind this concept but realistically speaking it makes no sense. I mean, the idea that a concept like 'country' can have rights like a living and existing person is quite absurd. What is this country btw? Is it rock? Is it the dirt in a particular geographic area? Do these elements have 'rights?' Or are you talking about the government in which case you're only really talking about a small fraction of people in a geographic area that somehow have rights greater than other people not in the government in the same geographical area. What makes these people better or somehow more deserving of greater rights? ^ I don't know in what world you live in, but as those things are quite obvious to the majority I don't know what to add. Federal countries who give that right to people as in the case of yugoslavia. Complicated and long historical facts, to put it simply in this case Tito and Yuga's leadership. I already showed where it is written, the fact that you tell me a country that can separate can't separate with the whole territory is beyond my comprehension. At least anyone non-biased can see where I'm coming from. I feel I answered to all your questions, if you can't understand I can't do much anymore. That no people had more rights than the other and in cases of heavy disputes the will of the majority prevails. If it's not logical to you, I can't do much, to me it indeed is logical and democratic. If you'll tell me ANY and I mean ANY measure Bosniaks took against Serbs or Croats I'll be glad to share your view. Unless you find me any serious comparison where any Bosniak politician suggesting denying Serbs and Croats their rights like to be called with their ethnic name, their right to call their language as they like, to teach them at school how their religion is backward and alien to the Balkans, I'll be more than happy to share your view. Unless you do, all your talk is cheap propaganda to justify mass murders and ethnic cleansings because that's what happened, no matter how many don't like the truth that happened in Bosnia.
|
|
|
Post by aaayyy on May 19, 2009 3:22:18 GMT -5
I realized that you can't do much but at least don't call supporter of mass murder those who don't share you subjective views. BTW if you want to become diplomat you will have to learn how to prove your views more logically. Why can't we assume that Tito and Yuga's leadership defined BiH borders ON CONDITION that BiH is a part of Yugoslavia?
|
|
Trazi Vise
Amicus
Today's "church" has NOTHING to do with religion.
Posts: 3,126
|
Post by Trazi Vise on May 19, 2009 3:27:38 GMT -5
^Why do you have -5 Karma?
You have won this debate...exalt!
|
|
|
Post by aaayyy on May 19, 2009 3:31:42 GMT -5
Thank you, Illyria, for improving my karma
|
|
|
Post by fazlinho on May 19, 2009 3:47:49 GMT -5
I didn't say you support it, I said you justify it (if you support it, I really don't know). And that's what you do, I don't feel I have to be politically correct with those who find any excuse to justify the killing of my people. If you do, good for you. A diplomat instead has to know when the other side is out of arguments and starts speaking non-sense If my biggest problem in such a debate ends up being explaining why countries separate with their respective territory, quite frankly, I don't think I'm the one who needs to re-think his views. Lol I also passed the final test, illyria said you won the debate... if she said I did I'd have serious doubts about the logic of what I said. Because from a political and legal point of view, which is the one we are interested in, the republics made up yugoslavia, not the other way around. Go to your serb friends and see if they deny this.
|
|
|
Post by aaayyy on May 19, 2009 14:30:46 GMT -5
There is international law (the quote was brought by Helapa, former forum member) that if separatist entity has enclaves which don't want to separate from original country, they have rights to stay. Who the hell you are to accuse me of justifying the killing of civilians?
|
|
|
Post by fazlinho on May 19, 2009 15:05:15 GMT -5
please bring it up than. sorry but Aren't these the exact words you used to explain why in ex yuga happened what happened? By the way: What you also fail to acknowledge is that the Serb side refused to do any diplomacy. The Bosniak side on the contrary agreed on everything (which I'm really happy of btw): the constitutive peoples would remain both the 3 peoples, both scripts would stay in power, the flag would represent only Bosnia as a land (this being the flag we used when Bosnia was ruled exclusevily by Bosniaks bs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datoteka:Bosnian_Muslim_Flag.svgWe didn't even try to bring up the use of arebica (the script we used officially untill 1911 and had to abandon informally as well in 1945). But still, the real problem was that we were asking for equal rights. In Karadzic's speeches you don't see him asking for enclaves to stay in Yuga, he asks for the whole of BiH. In Karadzic's speeches he doesn't speak of international law but of the fact we can't have any rights to Bosnia. That's the unfortunate truth.
|
|
|
Post by aaayyy on May 19, 2009 15:20:28 GMT -5
I explained why wars happened - no people wanted to be a minority in a country, so each people fought for their interests as they saw them. It doesn't mean I justified killing of civilians.
I will try to find the links to the law (unfortunately "search" option didn't work in old Illyria forums).
|
|
|
Post by fazlinho on May 19, 2009 15:24:22 GMT -5
Only fascists fought for their interests in such a way. Human beings in the end of the XX century in europe are only animals if they fight in such a way for their interests.
|
|
|
Post by aaayyy on May 19, 2009 15:55:02 GMT -5
I read that before the war there was Lisbon agreement where representatives of all three BiH peoples agreed to divide Bosnia into cantons - some ethnically based, some mixed. But then Izetbegovic talked to Americans and refused to implement the agreement. He wanted centralized BiH without cantons. That decision also helped a lot to start the war.
During the war there were several attempts of peaceful negotiations, where they tried to persuade Bosnian Serbs to cede some territory and to persuade Bosniaks to agree to ethnic division of BiH. They failed in both cases.
|
|